THE COMMUNITY SECTOR AND THE
ACT PRISON
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FORUM HELD 16 MAY, 2006.
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................... 3
Record of Proceedings ....................................................................... 5
Ruth Bell ....................................................................................... 5
Renee Leon ................................................................................... 6
Jodie Sherrin ............................................................................... 10
Profile of the NSW Prison Population ............................................ 12
Recommendations from the Kempsey conference .......................... 13
Progress to date ........................................................................ 15
Ongoing issues and difficulties .................................................... 16
Some suggestions for ACT community services sector: .................. 16
References ............................................................................... 16
ACTCOSS Prison Forum Workshops ................................................... 17
Summary of outcomes .................................................................. 17
Housing and Homelessness ........................................................ 17
Dual Diagnosis .......................................................................... 17
Prisoner’s Aid ............................................................................ 18
ACTCOSS Prisoner health policy statement ................................... 18
Questions Community Sector Boards Might Consider on their Involvement
in the AMC ..................................................................................... 19
2
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
INTRODUCTION
In 1998 the ACT Liberal Government announced that Canberra would build a jail
to house its prisoners, ending the transportation of its citizens across the border
to New South Wales. The plan has caused controversy ever since, with many
people loathe to spend money on prisoner services, preferring instead to
compound prisoner’s sentences with alienation and exile from family and friends.
Recognising that the community sector has a pivotal role in providing services to
people caught up in the criminal justice system, ACTCOSS formed the Canberra
Community Coalition on Corrections (the Corrections Coalition) in 2000. The
Objectives of the Coalition were to “ensure broad based community involvement
in the development and reform of the ACT corrective services system with
particular reference to:





The development of best practice restorative holistic models;
Transparency of contractual arrangements involving public funds;
Rigour and efficacy in the regulatory regime;
Advocacy of the rights, needs and interests of prisoners and their
significant others; and
The development of new and emerging corrective services functions.
ACTCOSS has also become involved in other networks, such as the Beyond Bars
group, which was established as an internet-based resource to fight against the
“law and order” debate in the 2002 New South Wales state election. Membership
of that group led to the development of a forum in 2004 – “Who gets to go to
jail”, that examined the way that people’s level of disadvantage in the wider
society puts them at risk of conflict with the law.
ACTCOSS also became aware, through the Beyond Bars network, of the work of
the Kempsey interagency group, and its InsideOut forum in 2003. That
conference spent two days examining the impact of the proposed new jail on the
community services in Kempsey. Realising that the ACT community was facing
similar challenges, ACTCOSS invited the coordinator of that conference, Jodie
Sherrin, to come to the ACT and share that experience.
The May 16 Canberra forum on the community sector and the ACT prison came
about because of good will. Good will from Jodie to take the time to share her
experience and knowledge with this community. Good will from the Department
of Justice and Community Services which agreed to fund the event. Good will
from the speakers, from the head of Justice and Community Safety, Renee Leon
to an ex-prisoner, who spoke to the community services that came along and to
let them know what must be done and who needs to be involved. Good will and
humour, too from the workshop presenters and the panel members, who helped
provide parameters for this broad concept of a prison run on human rights
principles.
Importantly, there was also good will from Ngunawal elder, Ruth Bell who not
only welcomed participants, but shared part of her story and the needs of
Aboriginal people who come into conflict with the white law.
3
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
The ACTCOSS forum on community services and the ACT Prison showed the
community sector has dedication and commitment to the welfare of people
caught up in the justice system, their families and wider support circles. The day
provided an opening; the start of a conversation on how best to provide services
to the inmates of the Alexander Machonochie Centre (AMC) and their families
that connect them to their community in preparation for release. It is also
apparent that the community sector is ready for a couple of other conversations,
starting with how we keep as many people as possible OUT of prison, and how
we keep the prison management accountable after the AMC has opened.
ACTCOSS is now developing a work plan for the Corrections Coalition to harness
the increased interest in that group as a vehicle for community input and access
to the development of AMC programs. We would like to thank everyone who was
involved in the day for their enthusiasm, their ideas and the commitment.
4
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
RUTH BELL
Ngunawal Elder
Mrs Bell welcomed attendees on behalf of the traditional owners of the land on which
Canberra is built. A member of the Stolen Generations, Ruth was born in Yass and is the
mother of 7, grandmother of 25 and great grandmother of 6. She is a member of the
ACT’s Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Advisory Council and works in her
community for her community.
Mrs Bell provided a human insight into how families deal with having loved ones in
prison. She shared her stories of assisting members of her community who found
themselves in conflict with the law, and generously welcomed attendees to the forum as
a traditional owner and elder of the Ngunawal people.
5
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
RENEE LEON
Chief Executive, JACS
Renee Leon is the Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety,
which is responsible for policy on corrections, including the new ACT prison. Renee
joined the ACT Public Service in early 2006, after a career in the Australian Public Service
working on human rights, international law, and access to justice. Renee also has a
background in the community sector in Canberra, having served on the Boards of the
Welfare Rights and Legal Centre and the Women's Legal Centre.
ACTCOSS COMMUNITY FORUM – THE COMMUNITY SECTOR AND THE ACT
PRISON
Mrs Bell, Ms Creswell, Ms Child, Ms Sherrin, … distinguished guests and agency
representatives.
I wish to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land we are meeting on, the
Ngun(n)awal people. I respect their continuing culture and the unique
contribution they make to the life of this area.
Thank you Ara, for inviting me here today. The Minister regrets that he was
unable to attend personally due to his attendance at an interstate meeting. I will
take this opportunity to pass on the Government’s appreciation for the important
work performed by ACTCOSS and the many community based agencies
represented here today at the ‘Community Sector and the ACT Prison Forum’.
It is appropriate that we should come together as a community to explore the
implications of the commissioning of the Alexander Maconochie Centre in late
2007. I say that because the community has been actively engaged in this
project over many years and has overwhelmingly given its support to the idea
that, regardless of what we might think of those who break our laws, it is not
right that we should transport these people interstate to serve their sentences,
out of sight and away from their families. The ACT Government has supported
this view, which has been reinforced by its conviction that the remand facilities at
Belconnen and Symonston are totally inadequate and shame us as a community.
Dostoevsky, Churchill, Nelson Mandela and more recently Justice Michael Kirby
have all passed comment on the extent to which a society can be measured by
the state of its prisons and how it treats its prisoners. The Government
determined that we will not be found wanting in this area of social policy.
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
state:
61. The treatment of prisoners should emphasize not their exclusion from the
community, but their continuing part in it. Community agencies should,
therefore, be enlisted wherever possible to assist the staff of the institution in
the task of social rehabilitation of the prisoners…
Some commentators choose to ignore this guidance. They find it uncomfortable
to acknowledge the fact that, as a community, we have a responsibility to our
prisoners, as well as to their families, to provide opportunities for persons
sentenced to imprisonment to turn their lives around.
6
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
Justice Stephen Tumim, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisoners for England
and Wales 1978-1995, noted that criminal behaviour emerges as a result of
failure of both the individual and the community of which he or she is a part.
The community has a consequent responsibility for prisoner rehabilitation.
For those who find this notion of shared responsibility disturbing, there is the
simple reality that prisoners will, again, be someone’s neighbour, some day.
What sort of neighbour is very much in our hands.
Our prison, as you will be aware, will be known as the Alexander Maconochie
Centre or, true to Canberra’s tradition of acronyms, the AMC. Captain Alexander
Maconochie was a 19th Century prison reformer who had personal experience of
imprisonment, having spent a period of time as a captive of the French. He was
Superintendent of the Norfolk Island penal colony from 1840 to 1844 where he
did away with harsh punishments and introduced education and religious
services, not previously available to prisoners.
Alexander Maconochie is most well known for the introduction of his reward
system, whereby prisoners would earn marks or credits for good behaviour and
hard work. They could then use the marks to purchase privileges and ultimately
their freedom.
The only punishment Maconochie advocated was the loss of marks. No-one in
Britian or the colonies had tried such therapies with convicts before and prison as
a reforming institution did not find wider acceptance until well into the twentieth
century.
In this country at the moment the overwhelming approach to corrections is
retribution and punishment and to prisoners, their demonisation. Given the
extent of the power of the State over prisoners this is the easy approach – it is
also morally bankrupt. We seek another approach, as did Alexander
Maconcochie.
The Operating Philosophy of the AMC reflects the spirit and intent of the ACT
Human Rights Act 2004 and the Healthy Prison concept. A Healthy Prison is one
in which:
 Everyone is and feels safe.
 Everyone is treated with respect as a fellow human being.
 Everyone is encouraged to improve him or herself and is given the
opportunity to do so through the provision of purposeful activity, and
 Everyone is enabled to maintain contact with their families and is prepared
for release.
The design of the AMC responds to these ideas. As you may have seen on the
model displayed by the Project Team, the AMC will be an open campus-style
facility with the majority of both sentenced and remand prisoners accommodated
in self-catering, five bedroom cottages where they will be able to learn and
practice living skills in preparation for their transition back to our community.
A sixty-bed Transitional Release Centre will be located outside the secure
perimeter of the Alexander Maconochie Centre to house low risk prisoners who
are in the final stages of their preparation for release.
7
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
The Transitional Release prisoners will be able to leave the Centre during the day
to access education, programs, employment, community support services or
other pro-social activities in the community.
The design of the AMC breaks new ground in a range of areas, for example:
 The absence of excessive internal fencing and razor wire; the usual overt
symbols of incarceration are absent
 Cells (include single, double and “buddy” arrangements) with high levels
of space, natural light and ventilation and which provide a high degree of
privacy
 A discrete area for women to ensure their access to services and their
personal security and safety
 Provision for a mother to have her infant with her
 No cells for women
 Cell block design which maximises light and natural ventilation
 The consideration given to the needs of the hearing, physically and
intellectually disabled
 Cottage accommodation for people on remand
 The needs of Indigenous people – in this regard the AMC project team has
been assisted by the Aboriginal Environments Research Centre at
Queensland University and other Indigenous people who have contributed
to, and guided the project
 The extent to which the AMC conforms to the Government’s environmental
policies with the achievement of the Green Business Council’s 4 Star
rating.
Undoubtedly there will be critics of this approach, but it is simply a matter of
creating a climate conducive to the humane management of prisoners and to
foster their rehabilitation.
The very broad representation of agencies present here today is indicative of the
complex group that prisoners represent and the complex needs they present.
Poor health, substance abuse, failure in education and employment, mental
illness, unstable accommodation, chaotic and abusive personal circumstances,
financial problems and exclusion from the pro-social aspects of community life
that many of us take for granted are characteristics of prison populations.
The over-representation of Indigenous people in prisons is of grave concern, as is
the growing number of women prisoners. The manifold adverse life experiences
of these two groups present a particular challenge for all of us as we grapple with
their rehabilitation.
We as a community cannot expect, that, despite the best of intentions, the staff
of ACT Corrective Services, both within the AMC and in Community Corrections,
will be able to address these problems by themselves.
In this context, today’s forum is a timely opportunity to demonstrate our
commitment, as a community, to this endeavour.
Support services are presently obliged to react to the needs of ex-prisoners,
after they are released and return to Canberra, when they are most unstable and
at greatest risk of repeating past mistakes. The task before us, through the
establishment of the AMC and repatriation of our prisoners, is to maintain
8
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
contact with this group, throughout their imprisonment to allow for the provision
of pro-active, rather than reactive, care and treatment – essentially to properly
prepare them to take a productive place in our community.
To this end, Corrective Services will introduce a Throughcare model of Case
Management in which Probation and Parole Officers will maintain Case
Management responsibilities for prisoners from their first contact with the
correctional system, usually prior to sentencing, through the period of any
sentence whether in custody or in the community and until their separation from
correctional supervision, either post release or on completion of a Parole or other
order.
Many agencies here today already have well established working relationships
with Corrective Services and in particular Community Corrections. If we, as a
community, are to achieve rehabilitative objectives with our prisoners we will
need to strengthen and build on these existing relationships. We will also need
to develop and maintain new relationships in order to work together in a coordinated and holistic response to those issues that contribute to criminality.
Most of our current prisoners were previously clients of one or more community
agencies in the ACT, and will return to Canberra to become clients again. The
opportunity available to us, following the opening of the AMC in 2007, is to build
on successful interventions with prisoners while they are incarcerated and to plan
carefully with them, for their successful re-integration into the Canberra
community.
In providing our prisoners with the best possible opportunities to change we
need to provide holistic approaches to the many and complex needs our
prisoners present. To do this well, each agency should recognise the expertise
and resources available through other services in the ACT.
Having repatriated our people from NSW, we must not permit the Alexander
Maconochie Centre to become isolated from the wider community. We cannot
allow the staff of the AMC and of Community Corrections, by themselves, to
shoulder a burden for which the community has a degree of responsibility.
Rather, with your goodwill and support, together with the efforts of ACT
Corrective Services, we will ensure that the AMC is well integrated into the larger
ACT community as a valued component of our social infrastructure.
******************************************************
9
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
JODIE SHERRIN
Coordinator, Insideout conference, Kempsey 2003.
Jodie Sherrin holds a Bachelor of Social work (University of NSW 1988) and a
Masters of Social work (University of Sydney 1992). Jodie wrote her masters
thesis on 'Alternatives to women's Imprisonment'.
She has worked in a variety of community based services around Sydney's inner
west and western suburbs before working for three years (1991-1993) in a postrelease support service for women being released from Mulawa women's prison.
This service was based at Sydney skillshare (Chippendale) and auspiced by CRC
Justice Support. During this time Jodie was a member of the Prison's Coalition
and was official visitor to Mulawa detention centre.
Jodie completed a Graduate Diploma in Adult education and training, and is
currently employed as a teacher of community service work at Kempsey TAFE.
She is also the Chair of Kempsey Community Services Interagency, the
committee who organised Kempsey's "Insideout" conference.
The following are Jodie’s speech notes from the forum.
REPORT FROM “INSIDE-OUT” : PRISON POST RELEASE ISSUES CONFERENCE HELD
4/5TH SEPTEMBER 2003, KEMPSEY.
MID –NORTH COAST NSW AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY?: POINTS OF INTEREST FOR
ACT COMMUNITY SERVICES SECTOR
I would like to thank you for asking me to speak here today and I acknowledge
Ngunnawal elders past, present and future and thank them for allowing me to
travel and visit this country.
I’ve come to share some of the insights we have learned in Kempsey about what
happens when a prison come to town. It’s a bit like when the circus comes it
brings whistles , bells and razzamatazz as the spruiker promises all kinds of
excitement and events but more like the “sideshow” in that it holds a lot of
broken promise and a general feeling of being tricked.
I had worked as a post- release support workers for women inmates in a
programme funded by Department of industrial relations called “Women at
work”. Who serviced the women at Mulawa detention centre form 1991-93. So I
did have some insights into how a NSW department of corrective Services
operates and the complex needs of inmates on release. I had stayed in denial
about its coming ,until I took my young daughter to the Kempsey show and saw
a banner on the grandstand proclaiming that the firework’s were “ proudly
sponsored by the Department of Corrective Services” and realised I had better
get myself and my sector ‘wised up’ to what was coming because the publicrelations show that had been rolling had worked wonders – they had the general
community eating out of their hand and even the community service workers
were hypnotised by the spangles and sequins.
The “Inside-Out” conference held in Kempsey on NSW’s mid-north coast
attracted 250 delegate’s over two days. The conference was initiated by the
10
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
Kempsey Community Services Interagency. The Interagency is a network of
community service providers who were concerned about the lack of discussion
and resources being allocated to support service provision to ex-inmates and
there families on release. We considered it contradictory for 54million to be spent
on building a prison to house people from mid -north coast, when it was well
documented that this region was poor in terms of socio-demographics and its
social capital. The conference was funded by the North Coast Institute of TAFE
The NSW Department of Corrective services had set up camp in the town some
two years before the prison was opened. Basically we had two years of public
relations s work from them. The Governor and staff attended all of our
interagency’s meetings and community events, playing an active role and
speaking about the needs for cooperation between the community services
sector and the prison in terms of “through care”. They said it was an important
principle of operation that inmates were to receive pre-release planning and post
-release referral to community services to ensure support in the transition back
to community.
At the time we were impressed with their level of commitment and even I started
to believe that there was such a thing as a “new model” prison (after all I’d
always loved the circus). We were keen to play a part in this process; however
we had a number of concerns:



Our community service sectors ability to service clients with such high
needs at funding levels that had contained no growth monies for many
years.
Our worker’s skill levels in dealing with high needs clients such as those
with alcohol and other drug issues and mental health issues.
The logistics and values differences in forming service partnerships
between the prison and community services sector.
The conference was seen as an opportunity raise awareness amongst community
service workers who had had little or no contact with prison issues .We covered
areas such as: who we lock up?; how they come to be locked up and some thing
on the experience of imprisonment and the effect that has on inmates and
families and what their needs are on release. We showcased some examples of
programmes that were being run around the state to support post release
transition.
It was important also in that it allowed a space for some opposing voices to the
consensual view that a prison was coming and it was a good thing because it
would bring economic growth and employment to a regional area with little
industry. It provided the community services sector with a platform from which
to raise issues and concerns for the post release support needs of inmates and
their families and to allow us to organise , lobby and advocate for increased
resources to do this .
We contacted community workers on councils for Cessnock and Junee and both
workers confirmed our concerns – that a prison coming to a country town
brought with it specific service needs:

Family support
11
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison



Emergency relief funds
Accommodation for inmates - post release
Development of cooperative case planning between corrections and
community based services in the provision of post release support
PROFILE OF THE NSW PRISON POPULATION
The majority of people we lock up in prison are the “poor “ and generally
suffer a range so social disadvantage:








Indigenous: 1828 per 100,000 compared to 121 per 100,000 for
non indigenous (ABS 2001)
The Unemployed: 65% of inmates were unemployed prior to
imprisonment (Baldry 2002)
Those who have problems with alcohol and other drugs: 70-90% of
inmates (Department of Corrective Services Research Unit)
Those who have been imprisoned before: 66% of inmates ( Baldry
et al 2003)
The mentally ill – 10 times more likely to be imprisoned (Fazel and
Danash 2002 citied Baldry and Maplestone 2002)
There is an over-representation of people with an intellectual
disability in prison. (Hayes 1991; Lyall 1995; Simpson 2001 citied
Baldry and Maplestone 2002)
The homeless: 85% males and 11% females had stable housing
prior to imprisonment (Baldry et al 2003)
Two-thirds of prisoners did not finish high school ( Lynch & Sabol
2001 citied Baldry and Maplestone 2002)
And on top of these shameful trends, the numbers of people of cumulative
disadvantage we continue to lock up continues to grow - there was a 45
% increase in the prison population between 1992-2002 (ABS 2003).
Another important trend, especially relevant to us on the mid north coast
was that prisoners are drawn from highly socially disadvantaged areas
and return to areas where services are scarce, under resourced or non
existent (Vinson 1999). Releasees return to neighbourhoods where there
are few job opportunities, little suitable housing, high crime and high
levels of police surveillance . The prospects for social success are low (
Baldry & Maplestone 2002)
82% of inmates are imprisoned for 12months or less (Baldry et al 2004).
These short stints upset housing, employment and family life. And despite
Corrective services rhetoric of “through care” 73% of inmates reported
that they received no information regarding accommodation nor support
in planning for release (Baldry 2003)
This sort of profile leaves many community workers with limited
resources , with grave concerns as to how to meet such client and
community needs with no promise of future funding increases on the
horizon and no political will with concern for those most disadvantaged.
12
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE KEMPSEY CONFERENCE
The conference and the post –conference lobbying made us aware that there was
general lack of interest and ownership of prison post release issues. Ex-prisoners
are generally not recognised as a social category with specific needs and are not
falling under the jurisdiction of any one government department.
The underlying recommendation from the conference was identification of the
need for inter- departmental cooperation in developing a comprehensive
framework of post release support services. We identified the need for a lead
agency in this process requiring strategically targeted programmes supported by
a range of human services departments. We felt that the non-government,
community based sector could best deliver such programmes.
During the second day of the conference we broke off into workshops and
identified needs and strategies. Some of the recommendations made were as
follows:
BROAD RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CROSSED ALL WORKSHOPS



From every workshop the recommendation was put forward to establish
transitional support workers for white men and women and for aboriginal
men and women.
Support services are best delivered from community based services as
experience suggests that ex-inmates feel more comfortable in accessing
services in a community setting. Transitional worker positions would be
able to assist short sentence inmates who rarely receive probation and
parole orders and are at the highest risk of offending. General
responsibilities for such positions include: pre-release contact,
assessment; developing and coordinating case plans; referrals; counselling
and advocacy.
The need for ongoing networking and lobbying to source funds to
implement recommendations and to build relations with offender
programmes officers inside prison to enable transitional support pre and
post release.
POST-RELEASE HOUSING ISSUES WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS
On the mid north coast we have a shortage of cheap rental accommodation and
4 year waiting list for public housing.




The major recommendation was to see increases to public housing stock.
Establishment of a housing brokerage worker in the community to assist
inmates to secure accommodation and to have access to funds to cover
establishment costs.
The need for an accommodation hostel for visiting families was also
identified. Currently some families are sleeping on the Anglican Church’s
verandah.
Research into appropriate models for transitional housing services
13
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
We established through the operation of Kempsey Neighbourhood centre a
housing worker/brokerage services (via funds from Department of housing).
However funds are limited as is cheap rental accommodation. A Housing forum
has been established and they have designed a short two day course for people
on rights and responsibilities of renting and how to access and keep rental
accommodation. Attendance at this course enables participants to achieve points
with real estate agents in the competitive rental market. This has proved helpful
to ex-inmates who generally have no prior renting references.
INDIGENOUS ISSUES WORKSHOPS
“There need to be indigenous voices heard at all levels of planning and
implementation of post release support services. We have our own answers. Own
programme ideas. Own solutions. We need to be involved in all decisions made
about post release issues “
(Indigenous issues workshop, “Inside-out Conference”)



Generally the Aboriginal conference participants called for the need for
indigenous voices to be heard at all levels of post release planning for
services.
The group recommended the appointment of indigenous workers to carry
out post release support.
The group identified the need for financial support for families in travelling
to regional prisons to visit inmates and support for families who would be
housing extra visitors in their homes.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG ISSUES (AOD) WORKSHOP





Identified the need for transitional support workers: Visiting inmates prior
to release and assisting people to plan for their life after prison e.g.
methadone, housing, ID, socials security issues, possible employment
training options.
Identified lack of service provision in AOD treatment area on the mid north
coast. Rehabilitation and AOD counselling service models—long waiting
lists and lack culturally inappropriate treatment models.
Increased training needs for frontline workers in dealing with AOD affected
clients in a holistic and appropriate manner. Developing a directory for
frontline workers of AOD services in the state.
Establishing service partnerships between Corrections and community
based services to ensure seamless service delivery inside to out.
Establish post release support directory identifying community based and
government services that are “ex-inmates friendly” and tuned into their
needs and who are also willing to visit inmates prior to release.
We have seen the establishment of a pilot ‘Correctional Centre Release
Treatment Scheme’ by Justice Health. This service provides support to inmates
pre and post release. The scheme targets those on methadone. It has one fulltime worker and one part-time aboriginal worker. There are no female workers.
We still face gaping gaps in service provision –both counselling services and
rehabilitation centres have long waiting lists. Rehabilitation centres are generally
are unwilling to take people direct from gaol.
14
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
We have manege to source funds from Drug summit money and Dept of Health
to run training workshops for frontline workers in working more effectively with
AOD affected clients.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM FAMILY SUPPORT WORKSHOP




Bolster funding to already existing Family support services already to fund
positions prison family workers. To provide counselling and support to
family.
Ensure prison visits are as child friendly as possible-toys, food etc. At the
Kempsey facility, mothers are unable to bring food/bottles in for children.
Only food accessible is “junk’ food machine which creates its own stress
and tensions between parents and kids.
Bolster funds to charities to provide emergency relief to travelling and
visiting families.
Ensure adequate transport to the gaol.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WOMEN’S WORKSHOPS

Forge partnerships between women’s services and corrections to ensure
services offered inside and out. Services need to work as advocates for
women inside and out. Especially when women inmates are imprisoned
within a men’s prison and will have “shared” facilities, which generally
sees them missing out on services. This has validated by our current
experience at Kempsey. Women’s education choices are limited to
‘jewellery making’, Hairdressing and deportment.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MENTAL HEALTH WORKSHOP

Concerns were raised at the increasing numbers of people inside with
mental health and intellectual disabilities. Felt this to be a result of lack of
comprehensive support and treatment services in the community.
Recommendation was made to ensure corrective services implemented
improved screening and assessment at prison reception and ensuring
quality services inside prison and adequate referrals post release.
PROGRESS TO DATE
From the workshop a delegation took the recommendations to the ‘Human
Services group’ of the ‘Regional Coordination Management Group’, coordinated
by the NSW Premiers Department. We were met with a mixed response. Some
managers felt that they were already doing what they could and for others it was
a issue for further consideration.
We have seen the funding of the ‘Correctional Centre Release Treatment
Scheme’ by Justice health and managed to access funds via Department of
Housing for a Housing Brokerage service. We have established a ‘Prison
subcommittee’ as part of our interagency work and this group has written
submissions for funding of “transitional support Workers’’ but no progress to
date. The subcommittee monitors issues in regards to the prison and has written
a number of letters to the Governor and to the press.
15
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
ONGOING ISSUES AND DIFFICULTIES
Services organised ‘Info/expo’ for inmates. The Governor and senior offender
programmes had agreed that this would be a beneficial move. Yet despite all the
paperwork being in to ensure access and briefing of services in regards to
security issues, on the day many service representatives were left outside or
experienced long delays. There were also problems with accessing the inmates.
Services spent a lot of time on their own – talking amongst themselves.
We no longer see any representatives from the prison or Probation and Parole at
interagency meetings. They seem to have become insular and isolated
(“institutionalized”) from the community sector. This has left any post release
referrals and transitional cooperation in the doldrums.
The “Through care” idea has simply become rhetoric. There are few referrals and
few probation and parole workers visiting prior to release. The “New model”
could have, “through care” and cooperation between ‘inside and out,’ increased
transitional support. But in reality the “New model” simply sees security as
paramount, this then becomes a barrier to community service worker entry.
SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR ACT COMMUNITY SERVICES SECTOR:




Community development -Organise strong networks for the long haul –
monitoring issues and development of service delivery.
Attempt to build relations with Corrections health/welfare staff and the
Governor to assist transitional support models.
Ensure appropriate staff training and support in working with clients with
complex needs
Research and develop appropriate service models for post release support
REFERENCES

Dr Eileen Baldry and Peter Maplestone , (2002) ‘ Barriers to ex-prisoners
and their families participating economically and socially in Australian
society’

NSW Department of Correctives Services (2002), Research Unit ‘NSW
Prison profile’

Baldry, E; McDonnell, D; Maplestone, P; Peeters, M. (2003) ‘Ex-Prisoners
and Accommodation: What bearing do different forms of housing have on
social integration ?’ . Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

Fazel, S & Danesh, D (2002) ‘Serious Mental Disorder in 23,000 prisoners:
a systematic review of 62 surveys’. The Lancet, Vol. 359, No. 9306

Hayes , S. (1991) ‘Pilot prison Programmes’, Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 17, 2 p 209-216

Lyall , I . , Holland, A.J . & Collins, S. (1995) ‘Offending by adults with
learning Difficulties- identifying need in one health district’, Mental
handicap research, Vol 8 (2) 99-109
16
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
ACTCOSS PRISON FORUM WORKSHOPS
SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
Presenters: Jessie Mitchell – ACT Shelter
Jason Morrissey – Samaritan House
Notetaker: Fiona Styles.
Key issues raised:
 Not enough exit strategies and support services.
 Pre-release consultation and work – resolve housing problems before exit.
 No exit housing support for men: ACT prisoners in NSW jails currently can’t
register for ACT Housing accommodation until post-release.
 Mental Health clients needs not addressed/catered for.
 Need to improve networking between services.
 ACT Housing policies around tenants who are incarcerated needs developing:
debt, loss of housing while in custody: loss of community and family links,
mental health pressures.
 SAAP, Housing and Prisons run by 3 separate departments/ 3 separate
Ministers.
 Need to un-block SAAP accommodation and create affordable housing options.
Key action items:
 Need to document activities and collect statistics (ed. note – de-identified).
 Target funding from Corrective Services to support exit/transitions programs,
pre- and post release programs.
 ACTCOSS Corrections Coalition needs to be restimulated – include housing
issues.
 DHCS to be approached for their input/response to housing issues for released
prisoners for policy and funding.
DUAL DIAGNOSIS
Presenter: Lyn Magor-Blatch, ADFACT
Notetaker: Bridie Doyle
Key action items:
 That the community sector explores the idea of a parallel through-care model
with every case manager selected by the person with money for these
positions.
 That the drug & alcohol and mental health workers employed in the AMC NOT
be Corrections employees: i.e. outside agencies and contractors.
 Recommend that there be residential blocks designated as drug free.
 We recognise that drug use is a continuing problem inside the prison and
recommend there be a range of strategies in place to keep people safe. For
example, a needle and syringe program and/or drug free cottages.
 Recommend that inmates with mental health problems are not segregated off
together.
 Recommend that the provision of all health related services in AMC be the
responsibility of the Department of Health, not the Department of Corrections.
17
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison


Recommend that there be a recognition that corrections officer’s jobs include
dealing sensitively with mental health and dual diagnosis and this should be
reflected in their training.
Recommend the implementation of peer educators program like Lifeline’s
existing South Australian program.
PRISONER’S AID
Presenter: Hugh Smith, Prisoner’s Aid
Note taker: Aristides Gonzalez
Key issues raised:
 Information for families regarding available community support, case
management of the prisoner, visits, etc.
 Visits and contact, including telephone contact and other non-visit options.
'Maximum contact with minimum fuss' needs to be the hallmark.
 Family support – using existing community organisations.
 Post release services: employment, accommodation, continuity of programs
begun in prison.
Key action items:
 Cooperation between agencies for support and funding of prisoner and family
support programs – a wide range of areas requires funding.
 Training of volunteers is important – for example, volunteer visitors,
community organisations that may not deal with prisoners until the AMC
opens.
 Education of community – most importantly, employers, government
agencies, community agencies and politicians on the subject of who gets to go
to jail, the reality of imprisonment and the needs of released prisoners.
ACTCOSS PRISONER HEALTH POLICY STATEMENT
Presenter: Karen Nicholson
Key issues raised:
 Need to define health in positive terms – WHO definition.
 Clearer exposition of sexual health and sexual orientation section needed.
 Covert practices are risky practices – for example, piercing, sexual practise
and drug taking.
 Private family visits important.
 Interface between counselling and health service delivery needs to respect
privacy and provide continuity.
Key action items:
 Need a “bucket of money” to resource services that want to develop programs
(Gov. action).
 Measures of success of the health services within AMC to be developed
(ACTCOSS).
 Need to get boards and committees talking about their ability and capacity to
participate in programs supporting the AMC (individual organisations).
18
Report of Proceedings: ACTCOSS forum on the community sector and the ACT Prison
QUESTIONS COMMUNITY SECTOR BOARDS MIGHT CONSIDER ON
THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE AMC
ACTCOSS has been working towards a human rights-based, rehabilitationfocussed prison that uses the skills and knowledge of the community sector to
promote better outcomes for people sentenced to imprisonment. We do this
through the Canberra Community Coalition on Corrections, which is a forum for
policy development and discussion on law and order issues.
With the opening of the Alexander Maconochie Centre, community groups will
have an opportunity to have a role in the support provided to inmates. Here are
a few issues your organisation may wish to consider in response to this
opportunity.







Do any of our consumers come into contact with the ACT Corrections
system? The following are just some of the groups who need support or
who are overrepresented in the prison system:
o Consumers with partners/parents/siblings/significant others in
prison
o People who have drug and alcohol problems
o People who are homeless
o Indigenous consumers
o People with an intellectual disability, including ADHD
o People experiencing mental health problems
o People experiencing poverty
Do we currently provide services for people who might end up in the
remand or prison systems, or who are exiting these institutions?
Does our mission statement and objectives in our constitution give us any
guidance on whether the prison should be a focus for our services?
What will be the financial cost of providing existing services once the
prison opens? (Some useful information may be found on the Alexander
Maconochie website – www.amd.act.gov.au )
What are the costs/benefits in our organisation tendering to provide
services within the AMC?
What are the costs/benefits of offering to provide support to prisoners and
remandees, if there is no specific funding for these services? (Consider
whether continuity of care through a prison term is something that
improves your organisational outcomes)
Do you feel you have enough information about the AMC to make these
decisions?
ACTCOSS contact: Karen Nicholson
Snr. Policy Officer
karen@actcoss.org.au
Ph: 6202 7222
19